Nate Silver's take on a tie.

Nate Silver's take on a tie. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 5:10:02 AM)
Nate Silver, the number crunching political blogger, discusses here the nightmare scenario in which Romney and Obama get an electoral tie at 269 apiece and the election gets resolved by the House, resulting in a Romney win. He states that the possibility of this just doubled, but it's still only at a 0.6% probability. The takeaway is that, for this to happen, Obama would need to lose every state where he has less than 85% support currently.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 6:51:06 AM)
So do you think the people of the US would accept a result like that? Given what happened in 2000?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So do you think the people of the US would accept a result like that? Given what happened in 2000? That's the Constitutional rules. Protesting that action would be protesting the Constitution. What would the non-acceptance look like?

mnottertail -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:44:59 AM)
Well, there is very little reality to the scenario in any case.

vincentML -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:45:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So do you think the people of the US would accept a result like that? Given what happened in 2000? That's the Constitutional rules. Protesting that action would be protesting the Constitution. What would the non-acceptance look like? Good point. It happened in 1876 when the House selected Rutherford B Hayes in exchange for withdrawal of Union troops from the South. So, it would depend on the party makeup of the House. Of course, you are right. It is Constituional.

vincentML -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:47:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, there is very little reality to the scenario in any case. Yeah, a tie is an unlikely scenario but it is possible that some states may find their electoral votes in unresolvable dispute. That's what occurred in 1876, as I understand it.

mnottertail -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:50:59 AM)
So is sticking yourself with a fork in the tonsils and bleeding to death while eating mashed potatoes.

vincentML -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 8:59:20 AM)
Yeah but mashed potatoes contain platelet activating enzymes while voting booths are rife with hanging chads and digital detritus.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 10:01:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So do you think the people of the US would accept a result like that? Given what happened in 2000? That's the Constitutional rules. Protesting that action would be protesting the Constitution. What would the non-acceptance look like? I am not really sure. Oranges and things thrown at Bush at his coronation......I am sure it would be a bit different this time

DesideriScuri -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 2:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So do you think the people of the US would accept a result like that? Given what happened in 2000? That's the Constitutional rules. Protesting that action would be protesting the Constitution. What would the non-acceptance look like? I am not really sure. Oranges and things thrown at Bush at his coronation......I am sure it would be a bit different this time Is it acceptable, to you, to have things thrown at the President?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 2:34:18 PM)
When he wasn't lawfully the President, yes.

DomKen -> RE: Nate Silver's take on a tie. (10/3/2012 3:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, there is very little reality to the scenario in any case. Yeah, a tie is an unlikely scenario but it is possible that some states may find their electoral votes in unresolvable dispute. That's what occurred in 1876, as I understand it. That is not how a tie could happen. The Constitution dictates that the state legislatures must determine how their electors are chosen so any problem is the states to resolve. There are several different, but very unlikely, scenarios where each candidate gets exactly 269 electors. In that case the House would decide the POTUS and the Senate would decide the VPOTUS.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125